Kamil, what he's doing shouldn't possible by anybody. And eventually others will figure out how to do it.

It depends how well his opponent played.

If he was competent and Michael has to do some intensive fighting, then yes that speed of advance is very wrong.

But I don't think it is case of build-ups only, because everyone uses them and effects are well known and accepted. It is more than that, and without knowing what Michael is doing any changes can be counter-productive.

The only things silly around here Flavius are your uninformed and biased opinions. I hope 2by3 ingnor your dribble entirely. You have no idea how I play the game or what my opponents do or don't do.

I have said it before. Take HQBU away and the game does not work. Period. Replace it with something better is the only answer. But to subscribe my successes down to nothing more than using HQBU is simply insulting.

I would not even bother playing the game as *Russian* without HQBU. To cite Pelton, even a monkey could win as Russian without HQBU.

Don't get too comfy with that. Micheal T has presented an open and shut case for eliminating the buildup entirely and I'm very tempted to go back and present the issue for reexamination. We came close to doing so. You could remove it entirely and the game's logistics are still far too generous for the offensive. The buildup is just overkill on top of the rail situation.

Your knee jerk reaction is right on cue, proving again you really have no perspective. If you really have any sway as you allude, then the worse for the game.

The only things silly around here Flavius are your uninformed and biased opinions. I hope 2by3 ingnor your dribble entirely. You have no idea how I play the game or what my opponents do or don't do.

I have said it before. Take HQBU away and the game does not work. Period. Replace it with something better is the only answer. But to subscribe my successes down to nothing more than using HQBU is simply insulting.

I would not even bother playing the game as *Russian* without HQBU. To cite Pelton, even a monkey could win as Russian without HQBU.

I was one of the folks who rejected this, btw. I have since changed my mind. You are largely the reason why Michael. What you're doing is indefensible.

Also, if you get a chance, here's the best book I've read yet on German military logistics in 1941. (The sequel is also quite good.)

Flavius you are not privy to what transpires in my games. You only see the result. For example there was not a single unit between the Donets and Stalingrad. I had one SS unit that had 46mp because I always keep if possible at least one unit at full fuel to act as a fire brigade or for an opportunistic shot such as this. This one unit drove 170 miles through uncontested open terrain right in to Stalingrad. If Robert had simply placed one Inf unit behind the Don Stalingrad would still be safe. You can not go around advocating rule changes because of one players success against a few guys whose skill set may not be as honed as mine. If there was a succession of games ending in 1941 between players of roughly equal skill then sure there would be a case for examining the reasons why. But I don't see that right now.

Micheal T, you are 70 miles east of Moscow on turn 12. Res ipsa locquitur.

Are all your opponents incompetent? I'm having a difficult time believing this. You have yet to play a game into 1942. The common theme I see in all your games are these incredible rates of advance that can only be explained by a scheme in which the entire logistical apparatus is being systematically bypassed.

Pelton has already indicated he's going back to HQ muling, and this is pretty obviously what you are doing. I expect lots of other Axis players will start doing this in due course.

What if, instead of looking at the supply system, we change armor and mech to act like regiments and only convert the control of the actual hex they enter rather than all six surrounding hexes. Would this not make the spearheads a lot more vulnerable to being cut off, make encriclements leak more like they did in WWII, and possibly slow down follow up infantry divisions.

Just an out of box idea, for discussion. Allows the German the option to make the deep drives but I bet they would be very risky.

He's maximized the process, but it's not hard. There's nothing arcane about this supply model. Always keep two empty HQs back (steal an HQ from a infantry army, if needed) and buildup. Cheap on APs because there's nothing attached to them. Move them to front, reassign troops into built up HQ, rinse, repeat. The only thing is my mind is if he's doing mulling for one or 2 HQs per PZG and how many PZGs per turn? It's quite possible to do 6 HQ buildups a turn (without anything assigned into them) and then transfer divisions over. Fuel in panzers far outweighs SU assignment, leader reassignment.

I don't do it because it's very gamey. These divisions didn't switch HQs every week. Strikes me as maximizing the model vs. playing a game.

But I can understand why it's being done because without it, the Germans can't grab enough land or do enough damage in 41 against a competent Soviet opponent. I've played against 2 inexperienced soviet opponents and without mulling or chaining, I can win and have already won one game. I'm playing against 2 compentent soviet opponents in other games and I've lost the 1st game and the 2nd game isn't going well either. Hedgehog defense without the ability to launch a hasty attack from two spots or defense in depth brings the advance to a halt without serious fuel/supplies and it takes TOO long to get the rail lines up to the front before the campaign season is ended. It takes 10 turns to get a rail lines accross the Denpr in the south. Cross the Denpr before that and your running on fumes without mulling. Same even in the north. Rail lines convert quicker for the most part but it's still a long time while the soviet defenses build up.

Remove HQ buildup? I can live with that. Unnerf the restrictions on rail conversions, reduce the blizzard effects first year, etc. etc., stuff that has already been talked about many times.

Vicberg, in that case I'm wondering if we should disallow buildups on units freshly transferred to an HQ -- make them eligible only for units that begin the turn attached to the HQ in question.

But something needs to be done about this.

As far as taking too long to push rail lines forward...only true in the very south. (And even there you only pull up short around Rostov and Voronezh, which is a long ways.)

Not true elsewhere. You can get rail lines past Smolensk by the end of August and have a full month of clear weather to attack Moscow. I know because it's happened in my last two games. Leningrad of course is a gimme so far as supply goes.

Agreed. My point is that there has to be some type of balance so that the game consistently lasts into 43, 44, etc., and as said before, has a chance for both players to win. Against a good soviet, I'm not going to do serious damage to the red army or production centers unless I mull. That's the problem here.

Against the hedgehog, I have to do deliberates because I can't hasty from two hexes (major limitation). If I deliberate, I have less MPs to exploit. If I'm facing 2-3 levels of stacked defenses, usually in good defensive terrain, it's impossible to make progress unless I have 40+ points of panzer MPs behind me.

To follow up on what you said, I don't think that will work. The mulling will happen across 3 turns instead of 2. So instead of 6 HQs in a turn, I do 3 HQs and keep 3 back. Then I rush the HQs up on turn ? and I buildup my other 3 HQS. On turn ? + 1 I transfer divisions into the built up HQs. Turn after that, next HQs, etc. Same song more administrative verse.

Remove HQ buildup, but, unnerf completely the rail conversion. Want to focus 3 FBDs on a single rail line? Fine. You can push in ONE area, but it will become telegraphed and that's where the fight will be. Most likely, 2 in south, 2 in center, 1 in north. Slows things down. There's won't be this entire annhilation we are seeing with mulling. Perfect solution? Probably not. I'm greatly worried because of the absurd blizzard effects that not doing enough damage to the soviets first year is death for the Germans. That's why there's mulling.

So remove HQ buildup, but unnerf rails, and reduce blizzard effects. Let the soviet shock troops do the damage to the germans, not the blizzard itself. I think combo (plus LVOV pocket, leningrad too easy, etc) might make for a more competitve game overall.

Vicberg...part of the reason I want to nerf the buildup is precisely because I think the railroads are altogether too generous as is. Infinite carrying capacity and can be pushed very far and very fast. Seriously, man. You can attack Moscow for a full month of clear weather, and you want to push them further east than that?

You don't need more than one rail line per AG. That's a flaw in our supply model. (It will hopefully be rectified in WITW when rail lines get carrying capacities.) A single rail line will service an infinite number of units, and that by itself makes supply priority a nonsense. What priority? Just push a rail line forward and you are good to go. And nobody ever, ever rests the panzers. Operational pauses simply do not exist.

Even in the south everything west of Voronezh and Rostov is within strike distance. Add to that the nearly automatic Leningrad and Moscow as a doable proposition, and that's enough for 1941 and then some.

The Axis also has way too many trucks.

Bottom line is the game's logistical constraints on the offensive are minimal at best and nothing like those faced by the Axis in real life. Note this is equally a problem in the late war. The Sovs don't ever need to stop either when they are finally on the offensive. Stockpiling for months? Forgetaboutit, just push those rails forward and call it a day!

Vicberg...part of the reason I want to nerf the buildup is precisely because I think the railroads are altogether too generous as is. Infinite carrying capacity and can be pushed very far and very fast. Seriously, man. You can attack Moscow for a full month of clear weather, and you want to push them further east than that?

You don't need more than one rail line per AG. That's a flaw in our supply model. (It will hopefully be rectified in WITW when rail lines get carrying capacities.) A single rail line will service an infinite number of units, and that by itself makes supply priority a nonsense. What priority? Just push a rail line forward and you are good to go. And nobody ever, ever rests the panzers. Operational pauses simply do not exist.

That's where I have to disagree with you. I'm not at the quality of Michaelt or Pelton. I find that waiting for the rail lines (without buildup) means I can't do enough damage to the soviets in 41 and that means a huge OOB I'm up against in 42, which further limits operations and makes it a short game. This is exactly what Pelton and Michaelt have been saying. Against good soviet opponents, you HAVE to do buildups in order to have a chance. Has it gone too far? Sure. Michaelt looks unstoppable, but I would love to see him play cheerfully insane, with his very solid defense, or even you. Would the results be the same? Absolutely no idea. But for someone like me, I stuggle to do enough in 41 because the rails lines are simply too slow against a good opponent.

Now, I'm talking about the game as it currently stands, with winter being brutal to the germans, manpower allowed to escape from isolated cities, etc. So if we want to limit supply, ok, but then we need to talk about ways to limit the soviets such that the germans to have a viable army in 42 that's not up against a soviet monster because as the game currently stands, you have to damage the red army significantly and the production in order to have a chance.

I'm not sure Moscow is achievable against determined resistence. We'll see in my game. I'm about 10-12 hexes from Moscow with 5 turns of good weather left (random, so I'm not quite sure) and I'm seeing less defense in the south as resistence is stiffening in front Moscow.

With 5 turns of clear weather and a railhead capable of supporting a push to and even past Moscow, anything can happen. It will depend in large part on how many panzer groups you've got to do the job. 2 is probably not enough. 3 I think is the minimum needed against strong resistance (which is why you want to take out Leningrad fast.) 4 is very difficult to stop, but will cost you any further advances in the south. Then again, if you've reached the Donbas that may be a good place to stop down there.

Vicberg...part of the reason I want to nerf the buildup is precisely because I think the railroads are altogether too generous as is. Infinite carrying capacity and can be pushed very far and very fast. Seriously, man. You can attack Moscow for a full month of clear weather, and you want to push them further east than that?

You don't need more than one rail line per AG. That's a flaw in our supply model. (It will hopefully be rectified in WITW when rail lines get carrying capacities.) A single rail line will service an infinite number of units, and that by itself makes supply priority a nonsense. What priority? Just push a rail line forward and you are good to go. And nobody ever, ever rests the panzers. Operational pauses simply do not exist.

That's where I have to disagree with you. I'm not at the quality of Michaelt or Pelton. I find that waiting for the rail lines (without buildup) means I can't do enough damage to the soviets in 41 and that means a huge OOB I'm up against in 42, which further limits operations and makes it a short game. This is exactly what Pelton and Michaelt have been saying. Against good soviet opponents, you HAVE to do buildups in order to have a chance. Has it gone too far? Sure. Michaelt looks unstoppable, but I would love to see him play cheerfully insane, with his very solid defense, or even you. Would the results be the same? Absolutely no idea. But for someone like me, I stuggle to do enough in 41 because the rails lines are simply too slow against a good opponent.

Now, I'm talking about the game as it currently stands, with winter being brutal to the germans, manpower allowed to escape from isolated cities, etc. So if we want to limit supply, ok, but then we need to talk about ways to limit the soviets such that the germans to have a viable army in 42 that's not up against a soviet monster because as the game currently stands, you have to damage the red army significantly and the production in order to have a chance.

I'm not sure Moscow is achievable against determined resistence. We'll see in my game. I'm about 10-12 hexes from Moscow with 5 turns of good weather left (random, so I'm not quite sure) and I'm seeing less defense in the south as resistence is stiffening in front Moscow.

Actually, you've already mentioned something that is certainly an equalizer. Random weather is virtually a must against an aggressive top notch German as the Soviet. Those 2 or 3 mud turns you gain, makes it much more difficult for the German to keep the pressure up to such a degree that the Soviet collapses.

In my game with Scott I had double mud on turn 5 in South and Central. That was pretty huge. Mud hit north on turn 12, which wasn't quite as useful (ideally it would have hit a bit later, as it leaves Moscow with 5 guaranteed clear weather turns) but it did shut down a push on Kalinin and left PG3's logistics in a mess.

Against somebody like Micheal I would insist on playing with it. Right now the house rules he demands to play with put all the chances in his favor and it isn't surprising he has yet to see 1942. Perhaps Kamil will be the first to do it, but I'm doubting this.

I think the real problem here is Soviet carpet defense. HQ build-up (and by extension virtually unlimited logistics) is required to defeat a carpet defense. Carpet defense is not realistic, therfore neither is HQ buildup/unlimited logistics. Carpet defense and HQ buildup/unlimited logistics BOTH need to be nerfed, or some more major trade-offs for both strategies need to be implemented.

But a case could be made about the chicken and the egg: Does carpet defense promoted HQ build-up, or does HQ build-up promote carpet defense?

Maybe something like a negative force multiplier for single Russian units in a hex. The negative force multiplier would be negated the more Russian units are stacked in a hex. However it works, the game should encourage a more historical Russian defense. OTOH it should not eliminate the possibility or option for a different Russian defense strategy choice.

Against somebody like Micheal I would insist on playing with it. Right now the house rules he demands to play with put all the chances in his favor and it isn't surprising he has yet to see 1942. Perhaps Kamil will be the first to do it, but I'm doubting this.

He does like a stacked deck.

_____________________________

This morning I logged onto the internet and ordered a chicken AND an egg.

A couple of points here I can't allow to go unanswered. First anyone that knows me knows that I *never* suggest playing conditions like house rules or optional rules (I might point out that non random weather is actually the default setting) that I would not play under as either side. When I play Soviet I will suggest playing under the exact same conditions. And after my game with Kamil I will be playing Soviet next. I find the allusion that I am stacking the deck in my favour ludicrous when I am perfectly happy to play as both sides under those conditions.

Second in relation to operational tempo. If any of you guys have been around long enough in wargaming you would know that it is the perennial problem with all wargames. Players of games are never subjected to the real life problems of real commanders. Just a couple are the fact that in a game we know the exact state of our units and can push them to within an inch of breaking. Not so in real life. Second, no one cares about electronic troops or their fate. It's somewhat different when real lives are at stake.

Flavius you want WITE to be something more than a game. You want the perfect simulation of the entire east front in WWII. It ain't going to happen. People play games for many reasons, one important one is enjoyment. A perfect simulation of the war would not be fun. Game designers need to strike the balance between fun and realism. Itís the age old quandary in gaming. There are always going to be compromises and simplifications.

The first and biggest assumption is players of like skill levels are playing each other. In a game as complex as WITE that is a BIG assumption.

After that one might like to see a distribution something like:

Germans win 5% of the time in 1941 Germans win 10% of the time in 1942 Germans win 10% of the time in 1943 Draw 50% of the time Russians win 10% of the time in 1945 Russians win 10% of the time in 1944 Russians win 5 % of the time in 1943 or before

For me a game that offers equal chances between equal players is a great game. Kind of like chess. Between equal players a draw is the most likely result.

I'm not sure we have enough results to say the Germans are winning 90% of the time in 1941 between equal players.

When the game game out, it quickly became apparent that the Russians were winning 90% of the time once the Blizzard hit. 2by3 has made a lot of changes to bring that balance back to something like the above.

I would hope, and believe, that if a game mechanic (say chaining or muling) makes the distribution swing to a German win 90% of the time in 1941 then an adjustment will be made, and should be.

Even though we see a couple of games with wins in 1941 for the German (i.e. Russians conceding because they cannot recover over time) can we definitely say that this is occurring a disproportionate amount of the time.

I know I have three games going as the Russian. In two I will hold Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalino when the Blizzard strikes. I believe these are two games between average WITE players (that includes me).

In the other I will probably surrender in 1941 but maybe not, too early to tell. But that is me an average player against a VERY GOOD German player.

I guess, before any more MAJOR changes are done to game, lets make sure the above distribution is OFF.

As Michael knows, I don't support the way he plays but that is between him and his opponent. It's not underhand let alone cheating and I have never seen any evidence that he has ever tried to skew house rules in his favour. Certainly no such attempt in my game with him. However, I see no point in playing those with his approach with the supply rules as they are now.

I don't agree with Vicburg that Germans need to exploit supply rules to win the game outright in 41/42. Something is probably wrong anyway if this is a usual result between 2 competant players. I have played as German several times and don't think all my opponents were useless. After all, as the Pathans say 'you measure the status of a man by the status of his enemies'. All bar 1 ended in german victory and Baelfiin and I are probably evenly matched in Oct '43 now - especially as he has to capture Berlin before historical date to win. I have always used HQ build up but never more than 6 Corps in a game.

The trouble with balance is that it shifts with player skill. If both players are poor then I would say game favours Russians. On the other hand if German optimises/games (choose your own verb) supply rules as well as Michael I believe the game becomes heavily biased in favour of germans.

Banning build up to stop Michael would simply distort the game badly for the rest of us. We would probably not find out how much as no one would play German any more.

Making Germans pay 30 APs to transfer HQ of a any mobile div would stop muling/chaining in '41 if I understand the process right and/or change cost of build up to 30 APs to build up any HQ would do the trick too. It also would not unbalance things for someone who uses build up sparingly like me.

I broadly agree with Comsolut's ideal, and I think the game is much closer to that now for 2 matched players who are not at the extremes of competance and/or gaminess.

< Message edited by sillyflower -- 3/30/2012 11:13:37 AM >

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

The trouble with balance is that it shifts with player skill. If both players are poor then I would say game favours Russians. On the other hand if German optimises/games (choose your own verb) supply rules as well as Michael I believe the game becomes heavily biased in favour of germans.

Banning build up to stop Michael would simply distort the game badly for the rest of us. We would probably not find out how much as no noe would platy German any more.

Making Germans pay 30 APs to transfer HQ of a any mobile div would stop muling/chaining in '41 if I understand the process right and/or change cost of build up to 30 APs to build up any HQ would do the trick too. It also would not unbalance things for someone who uses build up sparingly like me.

I broadly agree with Comsolut's ideal, and I think the game is much closer to that now for 2 matched players who are not at the extremes of competance and/or gaminess.

Wow. I have noticed that rigcht now Michael is like Pelton before victim of his own success.

FWIW I only ever HQ BU Pz HQ's. That is my own unwritten house rule. I think using Inf HQ's would be going too far.

In my mind a HQ has a transport component that should be very flexible in so much as where it directs supplies. I separate the concept of command as opposed to a supply network. That is why I have no problem with anyone rotating units between HQ's. The game lumps command and supply networks together through HQ's. Really they should be separate. There should be HQ's that are fairly rigid in what units they control from turn to turn. But the supply network of trucks should be very flexible.

So for those who dislike what I am doing that is the reason why I do it. The games limitations in how I would like to direct my supplies force me to solve the issue in a round about way. Give me full control of my trucks and allow me to build supply dumps and you can take HQ BU away.

Sillyflower, your points are well taken. You are probably right that the buildup is fine when used reasonably and not ultra optimized. I'm not sure how to deal with this ultra optimization business while at the same time preserving it for those who haven't refined things to the nth degree and broken the supply game.

Kamil, you may be singing a different tune after you are done with your game with Micheal. The next person who figures out how to deal with what Micheal is doing will be the first. Let me put it this way: I personally wouldn't play Micheal without random weather, and I consider myself a pretty good Soviet player.

It always comes down to the production system in any game and right now, the game is at the extremes. The extreme Soviet manpower and production capabilities that leads to 8 million man army in 42 forces the Germans into extreme measures of mulling in order to overcome. Get two equal players and the game is matched as is. Get one player better than the other and the game becomes lopsided quite quickly because the game IS extreme.

Some degree of mulling is required to keep the game competitve into 42. I played cheerfully insane. He did an excellent defense in depth. I didn't mull or chain and as a result, I didn't do near enough casualties to the red army nor did I hurt his production enough in 41. By mid 42, I was facing 8 million men with tons more coming. Lines upon lines of front line units and second, third and fourth lines of defense all in reserve mode. I couldn't do anything. I'm in a similar situation against Viktor. I haven't been mulling or chaining and I'm stuggling to blast through his hedgehog, so it's looking like it could be another similar type of game.

Alternatively, I played against another soviet opponent who seemed pretty inexperienced and he resigned in 41. Once again, no mulling or chaining. Against good players the Germans have to mull to some degree.

Wow. I have noticed that rigcht now Michael is like Pelton before victim of his own success.

Mate. If most can't do what few can, whose fault is that?

I could copy Michael ( and I have copied some of what he does) but I don't want to copy his approach to supplies or to play those that do. As long as his opponents don't mind then good luck to him. Like the good lawyer I am () I don't like his approach but will defend his right to use it.

Michael is an excellent player anyway, and I don't think he actually needs to use his extreme tactics to win. A bad player copying his supply techniques would not have his success and would suffer the consequences of that approach in '42 and beyond.

I would be happy to play him again either if we had a supply system that could not be distorted the way it can at the moment, or with 'gamey' house rules to stop him doing it.

@ Michael - supply systems are not that flexible. Even if you could do it IRL ( which I doubt due to rail network capacity in paticular) it would only be by robbing Peter to fuel Paul. This is something the game does not recognise. Expending APs and trucks does not adversely affect other units in '41 so there is no trade off for you to have to consider.

@ flavius - I don't have much of a clue either and I supect there isn't one outside mods or house rules. Another 'solutio' would be to restict fuel capacity for each side each turn so you would have to rob Peter but that would be very complex I guess and not practical given dev time/cost to fix a problem that is confined to a very small number of players. There are matters of more general interest that would be of more benefit to reform.

Maybe something for WiTE 2.......

_____________________________

web exchange

Post: I am always fearful that when I put this game down on the table and people see the box-art they will think I am some kind of neo-Nazi

Reply: They already know you're a gamer. What other shame can possibly compare?

Sillyflower, I have to agree. I'm not at the upper levels of play, like Pelton or Michaelt. I know exactly what Iím doing up to turn 4. After that, I find myself bogged down waiting for rails. I use every trick I can with the rail lines, running two lines off a junction during the same turn, etc. But the supply just isnít there, especially in the south. I limit ground support for level bomber air transport, etc. I donít know what else to do.

In my two games against good players, Iím finding that I canít hasty attack against large hedgehog stacks, because the limit of one hex for a hasty attack, makes this type of attack too risky. I tried using panzers to isolate the hedgehogs, but didnít have enough fuel to do enough damage. Against defense in depth, hasty attacks have a higher chance of success but the second and third lines of defense are usually all in reserve mode which makes that a bit risky also. Carpet defense like these, and because reserve mode might be a bit too powerful, forces the Germans into making sure their panzers are fully stocked. Itís their only real weapon. So, Iím open to suggestions!

This is fundamentally the problem. The Germans are not forgiving and if you donít smash the red army or do enough damage to soviet production, the Germans are facing a huge red army in 42, an even bigger carpet defense, with the reserve layers of the defense all in reserve mode, and itís effectively game over. Thatís why there arenít enough German players. I must have received 15 PMs for my opponent wanted post. That shouldnít be happening.

So this entire discussion needs to move up a notch for WITE 2. The entire game needs to slow down and become a bit more forgiving for the Germans. Itís way too extreme right now, forcing extreme measures from the Germans and perfect play to overcome. Certainly fuel/supply are part of the discussion, but so is reducing Soviet production and APs. This includes Leningrad being too easy, LVOV pocket, blizzard affects overblown, etc. . This game needs to become less extreme on both sides.